Waffenträger auf Panzer IV

Source: Yuri Pasholok’s blog

Hello everyone,

Yuri Pasholok (as a response to questions by Russian players) recently posted a short article about the WTP4 (that’s how I’m gonna cut it short anyway). Yes, it’s historical. Yes, it existed.

Waffenträger auf Panzer IV was designed by the Germans, not Wargaming. The vehicle that is in game was developed between the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944. On paper, it had roughly the same parameters as various other similiar projects:

- speed at least 17km/h
- 360 degrees gun traverse
- using powerful but available guns with regular gun shields and allowed some side protection
- the possibility to demount the gun and put it on regular towed lafette
- minimal armor, around 8mm

WTP4 was designed in two variants: with 149mm sFH 18 howitzer:


and with 128mm AT gun Kanone 81:


The design was actually scrapped, because in early 1944, the developers started considering putting the guns on even lighter chassis (in this case modified 38t or even 38d) – and Panzer IV didn’t fit it. Another role was possibly played by the fact that by 1944, Panzer IV was already scheduled out of production (by the end of the war, only three unified platforms were scheduled to be manufactured: 38t, Panther and Tiger II). Regardless, WTP4 never made it past the drawing boards. In case you are wondering what the hell is K81: it’s a 128mm variant with different lafette (either from Soviet ML-20 howitzer or French GPF) and different recoil mechanism. The muzzle brake was also different from PaK 44, or it wasn’t used at all.

47 thoughts on “Waffenträger auf Panzer IV

  1. First…. to ask if you’ll do an article on Waffentrager auf pz38(t) as well? I remember Serb saying something about it being capable of carrying a 128/150mm PaK.

  2. SS
    Do you believe WG did well by putting the Borsig on T8, this thing here on T9 and the WT E-100 on tier 10?
    I mean, in your own tech tree you had the Borsigs at Tier 9 ad 10 IIRC. What exactly might be the reason WG choise T8 instead of T9 or 10?

    • I think its rather simple, they didnt want a glass canon as a top teir. At the very least the waffle 100 has a decent frontal plate.
      But it might also be that they dont want a top teir german with decent camo.

    • Hard to say. I fail to understand the logic where you put a gun that wasn’t projected on the Panzer IV chassis (the L/61), yet you claim Panther chassis cannot hold the same gun. But I understand the logic behind WT E-100 development. Since Wargaming needed a platform to actually hold the 150mm FlaK autoloading mechanism, E-100 (along with Maus hull) was really the only viable option. I’d have preferred the “ultimate hunter” solution (no autoloader, light chassis, FlaK 45) – but I suppose that’s a matter of balance considerations.

      • The Maus hull would not have worked though as it would have been too slow. Which would not go along with the rest of the line. Tiger I and II hulls are sadly too small and under powered. Unless with the Tiger II you do a large amount of redesign like that of the GW Tiger and mount the engine and transmission up front and mount the gun in the middle. And use the rear to store shells and powder and leave some room for the crew to occupy. I don’t see the panther hull worth the effort. It’s already compact enough as it is as a tank.

        • Yet the germans planned its use with pretty heavy weapons, including a 3 round drum 128mm and the short 21cm howitzer.
          The FLAK autoloader doesn’t really belong to a tank as it was made mostly for fortresses, while they could have used the 15cm L/67 on the super-heavy chassis or an E-75 hull with the 15cm L/52 (which was the flak gun minus the auto loader).

      • “I’d have preferred the “ultimate hunter” solution (no autoloader, light chassis, FlaK 45) – but I suppose that’s a matter of balance considerations.”

        Same. Reckon the Borgward Leopard could have been a fitting endgame for the WT line. Less alpha but infinitely more sneaky. A rapier to the WT E-100′s sledgehammer.

        The E-100 just feels incredibly forced and shoehorned in there.

        • Maybe the B-Leopard could branch off of the WT-PzIV? Same kinda deal as the T-54 is currently, you know?

  3. In real life the ferdinend would keel da WT, I mean all tanks in wot was like that in real life, right?

    BWT I like flowers and im a guy :P <3

    /Se ya on da beatlefyeld t3azz cute.

  4. This vehicle having 4x the health of the regular Pz IV makes me lose some immersion.

    The first time this happened was when I saw the three different versions of AMX 13.

    • real tanks have no hitpoints. it’s a completely made-up arbitrary stat used for balancing. So just get over the fact that one PzIV hull has more HP than another. It doesn’t matter really.

    • Any word can be used in your own language if your a Historian. Sometimes we just either don’t like the translation of the word or just don’t want to change the original meaning or context. lafette happens to be Old French. It’s fine with me.

      • It makes sense if you are referring to original language name or text, but not a description of a vehicle specifically in English (or some other language).

        E.g. “Panzerkampfwagen III”, not “Armoured Fighting Vehicle 3″ or “Tank Mark III” (except when referring to historical English usage)
        E.g. 2 “The Soviet RPG series fires anti-tank grenades, one of which is the PG-7″, not “the Soviet RPG series fires protivotankovyye granaty, one of which is the 7 model”

        If there is some distinct meaning captured in the original language, then use a standard translation and put the original in parenthesis after it (or vice versa). These seem like completely reasonable rules to follow so that people can actually follow everything without having to learn another language.

  5. How the loading was supposed to be done ? The breech seems far from any kind of support for loaders, at most 2.5 meters from the ground.

    • 2.1m when on the level going by the drawings, and I’d be quite surprised if the loaders weren’t supposed to be standing on the platform around the pedestal.

  6. I’d really really not like the 150mm short barreled gun. Muzzle blast right across the upper deck of the vehicle? THANKS. Good muzzle brake and another meter on the barrel please. Either that or actual protection for the crew operating the gun.

    128mm with the longer barrel would be my first choice from just looking at diagrams. I’d want a limited traverse, as I’d assume it would be pretty sketchy firing at 90 like shown in one diagram. Light chassis, big gun… Center of gravity couldn’t be all that low either. I’m just envisioning suspension damage, very brutal on the crew, and slow reload/aim time when perpendicular.

    • by putting it in the correct place that the overall wieght of the vehicle is properly located in the chassis. In this case the big gun is to the back, while the engine/transmission is in the front.

    • Its called engineering. People do it all the time.

      With guns most of the weight is at the breach and there are things called counter weights to balance the gun. Correct placement on the chassis, further makes the whole tank more balanced.

      JPanther is an example of how to not balance a tank. T26E3 is fairly balanced.

  7. I have to ask wasn’t there any problems with recoil. With such big guns on Panzer IV (or indeed Panzer38d!) wasn’t there a chance that if not firing properly the guns recoil could damage the tank?

    • Not if you correctly design the recoil system.

      You cant damage the tank if the gun is properly fitted to the tank. If it is a pure Ad-Hoc manner like the StPz I Bison on the PzKamp I B chassis then it will overload and occasionally break parts.

      Recoil cylinders are designed for the gun on the specific tank. If it is a very powerful gun it might even have a double recoil system. Where the cylinders take most of the first blow then the whole gun and recoil cylinders slide further back to take up most of the remaining recoil and the suspension, the final and generally small remainder. With an SPG there can be a blade that in turn with the suspension takes part of the recoil on small chassis. Just look at the M12, M40, M41, M43, M44 SPG.

      Science for the win baby. =)

      • Okay I have little artillery knowledge but K81 and sFH18 were common (more or less) artillery pieces and then design had specific that guns could be remountable on lavette. So wouldn’t any modifications on guns affect it’s perfomance (both on tank and on lavette)?

  8. As my friend said: Paper can hold anything.
    “Hey Pasholok, we give you 1000 dollar, just defend the WTPz4. Thanks.”

  9. Where are these images from?
    The ones from “Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two” look different (not that description).